What do you think of this argument for God?

[Nonpareil]

Like I said I'm surprised you did not comment on God being limitless yet having limits, just was surprised, no need to reply if you haven't anything to say.

It's another of the issues, yes, but I think it kind of falls under the umbrella of "'a maximally great being' is a nonsensical non-definition", so I didn't really feel the need to make an entirely separate comment on it.

Maydole defines a perfection as a property which is better to have than not to have

Which is a value judgment, and therefore not objective, and not something that can have a "maximal" value.

and something is supreme if there is nothing which is even possibily greater or as great as.

There is still no coherent basis for positing a "greatest possible" value. See above.

Suppose that it is not possible (necessarily so or as you say 'nonsensical) that there exists a being with supreme (maximally great) properties . In that case, for any property x, it is necessarily the case that property x is not an example of being supreme. Well, if that is the case then, necessarily, for any property x, if x is supreme, then x is not supreme.

Yes, that is what happens when you have non-functional definitions. You end up making nonsensical, contradictory statements like this.

This isn't a refutation, Steve. This is saying "let's take two contradictory positions - that X cannot be supreme and that X is supreme - and mash them together, and show that it doesn't work, and therefore prove, once and for all, that you can't use two contradictory premises in your argumentation, only let's pretend that this somehow showed that X is supreme". It's completely pointless and banal, and does nothing to actually show that X is supreme, or that "supreme" is even a coherent concept.

It addresses exactly none of the issues with the argument. It just doubles down on how wrong it is.

So, it seems your claim of ability to refute the Ontological Argument "in a couple of sentences" is entirely based on your lack of understanding of the argument.

It's really, really not.